In reparation for disobeying St. Peter and his successors
+Feast of St. Peter’s Chair at Rome+
For years we have advised the use of the prayers HERE to help all obtain that unity in faith so sorely lacking today, but sadly it is impossible to obtain in its fullness without the presence of a canonically elected Roman Pontiff. Because the remaining means to canonically elect a true pope no longer exist — that is, validly consecrated bishops — the only unity possible is that for which we have advocated these many years: strict adherence to the teachings of the Continual Magisterium. And so it seems fitting that, St. Peter’s Chair at Rome having been vacant now for 66 years, we address the particulars of that vacancy, especially because there still seems to be much confusion and misunderstanding regarding what has been presented on this site and the current state of affairs in the Church. First it is helpful to remind all those reading this of their obedience to the Roman Pontiff in ALL things as expressed below by Abp. Amleto Cicognani:
“…All Catholics are subject to the dogmatic canons of Ecumenical Councils and pronouncements of the Holy See. The decisions of the Roman Pontiff condemning propositions contra fidem et mores, the various instructions of the Holy Office, the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda, the Congregation for the Oriental Church and the Sacred Penitentiary, the prohibition of books and theories opposed to Catholic faith and morals, all pertain to Catholic doctrine…. All the above pronouncements, although they do not strictly pertain to the divine law, follow, however, as deductions or declarations therefrom, and they concern the doctrine of the Church, and not its discipline properly so-called…” (Canon Law, 1935; Canon 1; pgs. 453-54).
Among these pronouncements would be Pope Pius XII’s 1945 papal election law Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS). Although it is a complete revision of Pope St. Pius X’s Vacante Sede Apostolica, it agrees with it in almost all its essential points. VAS forbids any episcopal consecrations during an interregnum as a usurpation of papal jurisdiction and nullifies any attempts at such consecrations, rendering them invalid. The same is true of anyone erecting seminaries and attempting ordinations, for this is also a usurpation of papal jurisdiction. Even bishops created during the reign of Pope Pius XII, if they participated in the Novus Ordo, accepted the usurper popes and/or signed Vatican 2 documents cannot validly ordain or consecrate without the lifting of infamy of law attached to Can. 2314 §1 regarding communicatio in sacris. Since none of the bishops or other prelates among those “electing” and accepting John 23 and Paul 6 called for a new election based on the invalid election of these usurpers, there is no one left to validly elect a true pope.
Who usually elects in the absence of the cardinals?
The protocols to be followed in such a situation are hereby explained by Thomas Cardinal Cajetan, (1469-1534) as quoted by Reverend Charles Journet, (The Church of the Word Incarnate): Journet asks: “In whom does the power to elect the Pope reside?” Cajetan answers: “The Pope can settle who the electors shall be, and change and limit in this way the mode of election.” Journet, in summarizing Cajetan’s arguments writes: “In a case where the settled conditions of validity have become inapplicable, the task of determining new ones falls to the Church by devolution, this last word being taken, as Cajetan notes (Apologia, Chap. xiii, No. 745), not in the strict sense (devolution is strictly to the higher authority in case of default in the lower), but in the wide sense, signifying all transmission, even to an inferior. (p. 480.)
“Cajetan affirms through Journet’s reasoned explanation: “…When the provisions of canon law cannot be fulfilled, the right to elect will belong to certain members of the Church of Rome. In default of the Roman clergy, the right will belong to the Church universal, (as with the Council of Constance), of which the Pope is to be bishop…. During a vacancy of the Apostolic See, neither the Church nor the Council can contravene the provisions already laid down to determine the valid mode of election. However … if the Pope has provided nothing against it, or in case of ambiguity (for example, if it is unknown who the true cardinals are, or who the true Pope is…), the power ‘of applying the papacy to such and such a person’ devolves on the universal Church, the Church of God” (Cajetan: De Comnarata, Cap. xiii, No. 202¬204; also, Apologia, Cap. xiii, No. 736.)
John of St. Thomas says: “…The concrete mode in which the election is to be carried out … has been nowhere indicated in Scripture; it is mere ecclesiastical law which will determine which persons in the Church can validly proceed to election.” It should also be noted that both Card. Cajetan and John of St. Thomas wrote prior to the ruling by Popes Pius X and Pius XII, and as Card. Cajetan states, “During a vacancy of the Apostolic See, neither the Church nor the Council can contravene the provisions already laid down to determine the valid mode of election” (De Comparata, cap. xiii, no. 202). And this is borne out by Popes Pius X and Pius XII.
While the above may have applied formerly, when all elected an unworthy candidate to the papacy in the person of Angelo Roncalli (John 23) they were automatically disqualified from electing another pope under Can. 2391 §1. This means that any remaining bishops would need to gather and study the situation, determining how to proceed according to VAS. But no bishops stepped forward to do this; none renounced Roncalli. All became willing members of the Novus Ordo church. And so all not only forfeited the right to elect themselves, but became apostates.
Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis no ecclesiastical law
Certainly with the election laws of Pope St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII, the Church has sufficiently expressed her something against it, since these laws clearly state that nothing can be done during an interregnum, even by the cardinals. At one time perhaps, before its codification by Pope St. Pius X, papal election law was considered ecclesiastical law, but it is now considered special law. Under Title IV — of Ecclesiastical Offices, (which provides laws for other types of elections), according to Can. 160, papal elections are governed exclusively by Pius XII’s Apostolic Constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis. This removes it from the realm of ecclesiastical law strictly speaking. The first three paragraphs of this constitution speak solely of the inalienable rights and prerogatives of the Roman Pontiff and the Church — especially during an interregnum — and thus these paragraphs treat of the supreme jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff and the duties, especially of the cardinals, to defend the Church’s rights during the vacancy of the Holy See, when She is most vulnerable to attack.
Pius XII levies penalties for violating papal law and canon law during an interregnum, penalties which can be lifted only by a future pontiff, and these penalties are taken from ancient laws dating back to the Middle Ages. He then seals it in the third paragraph by stating that anything done which violates the penalties he has laid down for usurping papal jurisdiction, violating the rights of the Church, or disobeying or ignoring papal or canon law is null, void and invalid, and this by his “Supreme Authority.” So while the rest of the constitution is mainly about the manner of election by Cardinals, there are certain parts of it that obviously are intended to preserve the Church’s unchangeable nature and integrity and preserve the pope’s supremacy of jurisdiction during an interregnum, both of which are matters of Divine Revelation. So the three paragraphs introducing Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, at least, are infallible.
Fatal errors of the “illicit only” crowd
At one time, I believed the laity could elect a pope, using a wide interpretation of the “devolution principle” and the term “universal Church.” Further study and hard experience proved this was not possible, given the dogmatic definitions by the Council of Trent, VAS and other considerations. Based in part on the idea that VAS was only “an ecclesiastical law” and not binding on the faithful, I also believed Traditional clergy were only questionably valid. But again, the realization that VAS was infallible in its first three paragraphs, at least; also learning that the vindicative penalty incurred by infamy of law invalidated attempts by LibTrad pseudo-clergy to perform ecclesiastical acts proved this belief to be false. Some, however, never questioned the validity of these pseudo-clerics and began praying at home because they believed these men were only illicit (and to be avoided according to the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas).
Those holding this belief maintain they are not obligated to determine if these false clergy are valid or not, and some among them insist invalidity can never be proven. They base this on arguments advanced by Trad pseudo-clergy citing epikeia (a relaxation of the law based on reasonableness) as a sort of suppletory principle. It was for this reason I decided to further investigate this issue several years ago, resulting in the invalidity and epikeia proofs presented HERE and HERE. All these proofs are taken directly from infallible Church teaching and Canon Law, and indisputably prove that the principle of epikeia could never be used by LibTrads to circumvent the Divine Law of juridical mission. It is the manner in which the continuation of this mission will proceed that is addressed in Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, which forbids the cardinal priests and bishops to usurp papal jurisdiction during an interregnum. And it is clear from binding papal documents throughout the centuries that the pope alone has the right to approve bishops prior to their consecration, which cannot proceed without his approval.
Those claiming Traditional clergy possess illicit orders only, then, are upholding validity. They deny that the pope alone has supreme jurisdiction to rule otherwise — the right and power to approve bishops and declare those consecrated without this approval during an interregnum null, void and invalid. They are the fence straddlers Christ has said He will vomit from His mouth. They claim that observing the safer course by not attending Mass and Sacraments is enough, but they are confusing the moral precepts governing conscience formation with the necessary obedience to the dogmatic portion of VAS. They are basing their position on an opinion which LibTrad “experts” claim is probable — that VAS is an ecclesiastical law only and can be dismissed as no longer applying to the current “emergency” situation.
No probable opinion on validity possible
But they must ask themselves: What proofs have these experts ever presented that support this so-called opinion? Probable opinions can be formulated and considered as reliable only by five or six approved theologians writing before the death of Pope Pius XII, and LibTrad pseudo-clergy have never been approved or commissioned to teach by a canonically elected pope. Even if these probable opinions could be found, all theologians agree, as pointed out on this site many times, from approved works: Probable opinions can never be used to determine sacramental validity. (Revs. Prummer, McHugh and Callan, Abp. Cicognani, Davis, Slater, et al). It seems to matter to no one that Pope Pius XII uses his “Supreme Authority,” added specifically to his revision of Pope St. Pius X’s previous election law, to express his mind in this matter. Or that VAS is entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis and is therefore binding on all for belief, not just the Cardinals as LibTrads also sometimes claim.
If the illicit only crowd yet believe these men are valid, they should also consider what Rev. Gury and others have to say in this matter. For it is not just abstaining from the liturgical functions of the LibTrad sects that remove one from the bane of communicatio in sacris (cooperation with non-Catholics); it is also abandoning all their so-called doctrines. And primary among these doctrines is their pretended validity. So clearly those still holding these men to be valid, with absolutely no proof of their validity and a mountain of proof offered in the links above to disprove it, are yet guilty of communicatio in sacris. They may pray at home and eschew all else they know to be false that was taught by the LibTrad sects. But if they cling to this one, monumental error, they are guilty of denying a truth infallibly taught by the Church as closely connected to Divine Revelation.
And what is the penalty for holding such beliefs, even if taught only in the pope’s ordinary magisterium (dogma is not just contained only in ex cathedra pronouncements), in order to be classified as a dogma? The following is taken from a chart On the Value of Theological Notes and the Criteria for Discerning Them by Father Sixtus Cartechini S.J., Rome, 1951 — a work which was drafted for use by auditors of the Roman Congregations.
Theological Note: | Doctrine of ecclesiastical faith |
Equivalent term: | De fide ecclesiastica definita |
Explanation: | A truth not directly revealed by God but closely connected with Divine revelation and infallibly proposed by the Magisterium. |
Example: | The lawfulness of communion under one kind. |
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: | Heresy against ecclesiastical faith. |
Effects of denial: | Mortal sin directly against faith, and, if publicly professed, automatic excommunication and forfeiture of Church membership. |
Remarks: | It is a dogma that the Church’s infallibility extends to truths in this sphere, so one who denies them denies implicitly a dogma or Divine faith. |
This is not a matter of conscience formation, but of membership in the Catholic Church. In VAS, Pope Pius XII infallibly indicates that any usurpation of those things reserved exclusively to the Pope is forbidden during an interregnum, (and we are 66 years into this interregnum). Approval of bishops prior to their consecration is exclusively reserved to the pope (Council of Trent, Mystici Corporis, Ad sinarum gentum). Ergo, consecration without papal approval is a usurpation of the pope’s supreme jurisdiction, divinely instituted by Christ, and is therefore null, void and invalid. So any objections about the anathemas and warnings posted on this site against LibTrad sects and especially the leaders of these sects is well justified — these leaders are not clerics, and they do not represent the Catholic remnant any more than their Novus Ordo counterparts because they long ago ceased to be members of the Church! They are leading souls astray, and lest we be condemned ourselves, we are obligated to expose them.
Conclusion
True bishops existing in 1958 were under a grave obligation to challenge Roncalli’s election as invalid, a proven fact according to the laws and teachings of the Church. Had they then declared the papal See vacant, followed the election part of VAS as far as possible and elected a true pope, we would not be writing this today. But through fear, cowardice, or crass and supine ignorance they abandoned the Church to join a non-Catholic sect. Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio and Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis held all the answers and solutions to the problems which arose but they chose to defy these infallible teachings, and none of the faithful rose up to demand they do their bounden duty. This was and is the Great Apostasy. Rev. J. Wilhelm writes in the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia under Councils: “…When there was no Pope, or the rightful Pope was indistinguishable from antipopes… In such abnormal times the safety of the Church becomes the supreme law and the first duty of the abandoned flock is to find a new shepherd, under whose direction the existing evils may be remedied.”
The safety of the Church is paramount in such times, and only the Roman Pontiff can guarantee that safety, not the Mass and Sacraments. Without the safety only Christ’s Vicar can offer, we fell prey to the ministrations of men dressed as clerics, promoting the worship of bread idols and misleading souls; hearing confessions with no ability to absolve and no obligation to observe the Seal of the Confessional; pretending to perpetuate themselves with ancient rites devoid of any transmission of power. In short, a cruel mockery of all that was ever holy in the Church, particularly the papacy. We offer this article as a small act of reparation to St. Peter and his successors, who along with Our Lord suffered and died for the faith. Those praying the Unity Octave should understand well what they pray for, for today the only unity we can hope to obtain is by faithful obedience to all papal pronouncements throughout the ages:
That they all may be one as Thou Father in Me and I in Thee, that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me.
V. I say unto thee that thou art Peter
R. And upon this rock I will build My Church.
Let us pray: O Lord Jesus Christ, Who said unto thine Apostles, “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you, regard not our sins but the faith of Thy Church and grant unto Her that peace and unity WHICH ARE AGREEABLE TO THY WILL. Who livest and reignest God forever and ever. Amen.
(300 days indulgence)